Dependent tasks

It would be nice to mark (link?) some tasks as dependent on another task being completed.

Posted at 9:03pm on February 9, 2007

michael.stewart says:

Perhaps tasks that are waiting for another task to be finished could be dimmed. When all the prerequisite tasks are finished, the the task would turn the normal font again.

Posted 11 years ago

jmc says:

Mmm, yes please. This would be really useful, and generate lots of GTD love.

If you enable any drag and drop, then you could implement this as dragging a task onto the prerequisite one, and having a drop zone in the center or right that made it a child. You could visually show the result by indenting the dependent task.

Posted 10 years ago

mfarango says:

Michael is right, and could be a good improvement in RTM features. Specially because could be added another functionality...
I use RTM mainly for:
1. Calendar (events/meetings)
2. To do (no due tasks)
And if you implement this feature could be an interesting and powerfull Project manager tool.

I use RTM for GTD and I work in project management. This tool could be very differentiating from other calendar/task tools. RTM is intuitive I hope this feature comes very soon, Emily help us.

Posted 10 years ago

paul.rucker says:

Having nested tasks would be a great addition. The ability to indent a task to become a sub task is another method of making this work.

Posted 10 years ago

jonathan.lewis says:

The ability to have nested/dependent tasks would greatly improve an already great RTM!

Posted 10 years ago

mykol225 says:

Great idea, it becomes annoying having dependent tasks showing up around the parent task...it gets confusing when you have a lot of them.

Posted 10 years ago

callista says:

*hands raised* Yes. I would like this as well. It'll be a great function.

Posted 10 years ago

andrew.cheung says:

this would be awesome if they were collapsible or something

Posted 10 years ago

gmaletic says:

Boy, would I love this!

Posted 10 years ago

nifwlseirff says:

I would definitely use this feature - running multiple projects concurrently, the tag/smart list approach doesn't help with dependencies.

Posted 10 years ago

za.list says:

I second the request - I would even consider giving up software I've paid for.
Anyway, I don't think we'll see this anytime soon.

Posted 10 years ago

peterlecki says:

No doubt, this would be a very useful addition!

Posted 10 years ago

michael.stewart says:

I would still love to have this ability.

Posted 10 years ago

tbreiss says:

I'm just playing with this, and was trying to use tags and then smart lists to keep track of projects, in hopes of avoiding having a list for every project. But saved smartlists just become another list tab, defeating the whole idea.

So yes, some kind, any kind of sub list, witch dependancies, would be wonderful!

Posted 10 years ago

arollason says:

I would love this also. IMHO it's a big flaw in the GTD system in general.

It's all very well having "call Sue re: suitable dates" be the next step to planning a birthday party to get you started, but once you've done that you have to immediately go back to the project plan to see what's next. Or you could wait until the weekly review to discover that you then need to "Call Bob the Clown to see if he's available those dates" by which time he's been booked by someone else. I'm being pedantic but you get the idea.

I think what a lot of us are asking for is a simple project planner with outlining and dependencies feeds into the "todo now" list as items become relevant.

Really appreciate if anyone has any tips on ways or tool for achieving this. I've taken to annotating tasks to remind me that, when done, there's another next action to be set (a * or a [hint] at the end of the title)

Posted 10 years ago

tobiaspj says:

This would be a great feature. Maybe some kind of "task map" like (rubbish) Microsoft Project uses?

Posted 10 years ago

john.schmitz says:

Yes, great idea.

Posted 10 years ago

lazallen says:

sounds good to me

Posted 10 years ago

dogrover says:

This feature has my vote, as well.

Posted 10 years ago

barend.strydom says:

Great idea as i'm also trying to use RTM as project management tool

Posted 10 years ago

gangli says:

It is a great idea to include a sub-task list, or dependent task in RTM. After that RTM can be a really strong GTD tool.

Posted 10 years ago

leosaraiva says:

Great idea. My two thumbs are up.

Posted 10 years ago

benpage26 says:

If you complete the task, the task that was dependant on should take its place

[And note, dependancies are different to sub-tasks. Technically.]
[Note 2: i want them both... :0 ]

Posted 10 years ago

drorsnir says:

Exactly as benpage26 said - sub-tasks are different from dependencies, and I want them both too (but I want sub-tasks more than anything else). I understand (according to comments elsewhere) that this might be "against the GTD system", or something of the sort, but since strict followers of GTD can always just ignore such features, it would be extremely useful for most of us without getting in the way of others.

Right now this greatly limits the usefulness of RTM for me - but since most of the others don't allow it either, I guess I will stick with RTM for now (btw, todoist.com does implement this sub-tasks, but I tend to dislike the interface there; plus, it's a one-man side-project with no export functionality, so I wouldn't trust it with my life)

Posted 10 years ago

justyn says:

I would find the ability to make some tasks dependent on others INCREDIBLY useful.

I understand that Emily and co at RTM are being cautious not to complicate the user interface. However I think this feature could be immensely powerful yet intuitive.

Perhaps it could be implemented like this:

1) A new tab in the right-hand box (alongside Task and Notes) called "Depends" or "Requires". Alternatively just a new property in the Task tab.

2) In this tab/property, a method of selecting (multiple) tasks that the current task(s) depends on. I think the best way would be a variation on the way you add tags to a task: you begin to type, and a list of tasks (and perhaps tags) that contain the letter sequence you've typed appears in the drop down list. A newline would be used to separate different tasks.

3) Either by default all tasks could be listed, even those that depend on another incomplete task, but distinguishable visually (perhaps they are a lighter gray), or else they are normally not visible until active. Either way, a new search operator would allow filtering out those tasks that depend on an incomplete task.

I feel that having this in a new tab like "Requires" would help those with no concept of dependencies just ignore the whole thing.

As a side note, perhaps this new Requires tab could eventually contain other properties that would be needed before the task became active, ie. at a certain date.

Posted 10 years ago

yonten says:

Yes, yes both my hand are up for this one. Sooooo useful. Please, please can we have this.

Posted 10 years ago

josephchang says:

great ideas!

as far as for a dependent task system, the indent idea seems to make the most sense to me. i like that you would be able to see all the dependent tasks grouped together under the foremost task. then when that task is done, the next task in line takes its place.

yeah, sub-task and dependency are different. i think it's that sub-tasks are part of a 'project' or ultimate goal, while dependencies aren't necessarily part of a goal. i think.

the indent idea might not work for sub-tasks (at least, not in the same way) only because there might be more than one task you can do at a time for that 'project.'
in case you want to know, this is how i handle projects and sub-tasks:
i made a tab called 'projects' which aren't tasks in themselves, but all their associated tasks are in another tab i called 'next action' (as part of the gtd system). all these next actions have a note referring to which project they are associated with.

Posted 10 years ago

mphillips3399 says:

This would be a very good feature of RTM. I'd love it. It's already great, but this would make it even better!

Posted 10 years ago

andy.maggs says:

Gets my vote too - in fact it is almost essential - no web based system I have found so far does this properly. IMO in the overview (and gadget/calendar views) there is no point seeing a task that depends on another task until that task is marked as completed. Obviously in main RTM you need to be able to see them in order to be able to edit them.

Posted 10 years ago

raibaz says:

My thumbs up on this feature too...it would make RTM the ultimate tool :)

Posted 10 years ago

shbrown says:

This gets my vote as well.

As people noted above, you need to have both dependencies and sub-tasks--they're different things.

Additionally, if you could show the to-do list in a Gatt diagram, I think this would be a great product management tool--I would use it for that. Gatt diagrams are the best way to spot bottlenecks, as well as motivating a team (or you) to get the projects done--better than a to-do list, I think, because you get to see progress towards a goal.

Posted 10 years ago

anichols says:

One more vote. While I believe this is addressed in GTD (the book) through the weekly review it would be handy to have an easy way to get back to the parent project for Actions. Alternatively or additionally, it may be useful to implement the 'next action' approach where a single trigger completes this action and then either takes you back to the parent task (project) for review or opens a new task dialog so that the next action may be setup.

Posted 10 years ago

roofone says:

would love to see task dependencies (I just spent 10 minutes trying to figure out how to do it)

Posted 10 years ago

eric.finley says:

Both hands up for me, too. I just popped over here to suggest it.

I like the "Requires" field idea, where you link the dependent task to an existing task, and where it doesn't show up at all on the Overview, and shows up only tucked away under an explodable [+] icon on the most-current task even within the lists view.

But rather than suggest to the RTM team that they should try to implement task maps or Gantt charts or anything... just dependent tasks would make a huge difference. Don't get distracted by frills.

If they then added export of that task's tree (say by emailing it to you in some consistent plaintext .csv-style format) then turning it into whatever graphical form can be done rapidly by those who want to do so, without dragging on the RTM team's time. Gantt charts are cool, but 99% of folks don't need 'em and can't much benefit from 'em.

Posted 10 years ago

alexander.atallah says:

This would make getting things done so much faster. Most of my tasks have something to do with each other, and dependencies are very strong in my lists. I would love to be able to manipulate items with other items' status.

Posted 10 years ago

gudinin says:

fully second the idea

Posted 10 years ago

johnadriscoll says:

I would like to see both subtasks and dependent tasks.

Especially if multiple tasks could depend on a single task. For example, tasks which cannot proceed until additional server space is installed.

Posted 10 years ago

s3bishop says:

Yes, dependent tasks, or tasks in a parent child relationship. Also the ability to sequence the tasks.

Posted 10 years ago

dcefrance says:

Dependent tasks would just be absolutely wonderful!!!

One of my lists is just a to do list of tasks for rebuilding a wall in our garden. But everything is dependent. Move the cement to the back garden on Monday and then start laying bricks on Tuesday. Uh Oh. It rained on Monday. I postpone Monday's task. But Tuesday's task hasn't moved. I have to manually go through each task down the list and pospone them...

The kids' homework: Buy the book on Monday. Read the book on Tuesday and Wednesday. Do the book report on Thursday. Uh Oh. We couldn't get the book on Monday but rather Wednesday. Postpone Monday's task and everything else would move along. Wonderful!

I could go on...

You get the idea. This could be so much easier to use and manage than a full-blown Project Management System while still being multi-user and powerful.

What a great idea!!!

Posted 10 years ago

cainmark says:

Would still love to have this. At least two forum topic posts about this very subject.

Posted 10 years ago

don.march says:

Emily and co.: At the risk of annoying you further about this topic, I'll add my request. *Please* consider dependent tasks. I would even pay for RTM if it had this feature.

Posted 10 years ago

s3bishop says:

The ability to have a task hierarchy or nested relationships or 'depends on' or 'for' fields would make RTM absolutely fantastic!

Posted 10 years ago

barney.redsky says:

Both dependent and sub tasks are much needed additions which i would use regularly.

Posted 10 years ago

yakuza says:

I've wanted this functionality for a long time. I hope we do see it at some point!

Posted 10 years ago

justyn says:

Hi RTM team,

I just read the announcement on the RTM Pro accounts. I think they're a good idea, and a fine price.

But the lack of dependent tasks (or something similar) has held me back from using RTM to manage everything in my daily life. I use the GTD system, and without dependent tasks (or whatever) I think it is too inefficient to manage the various little "projects" we always have on the go.

As don.march says above, I would definitely pay to have this feature!

Posted 10 years ago

kenrickturner says:

Concur!

Posted 10 years ago

kempcb says:

It hasn't been mentioned yet, but www.hiveminder.com does this very thing--allows you to create "but first" ..."and then" tasks to chain the dependencies of tasks together. I LOVE the idea; I don't like how HM does it (and many other things), however--which is why I'm sticking with RTM.

I like the way that foury describes something similar in another post, located here.

"Expressions that define ... relationships between two or more tasks"

Posted 10 years ago

alejandrops says:

I love the idea!

Posted 10 years ago

angela.randall says:

Apparently I haven't yet put my vote on this one. This would be awesome.

Ange.

Posted 10 years ago

ikhnaton2 says:

yea, I logged in to propose this idea too

Posted 10 years ago

richard.schevis says:

I concur with my colleagues – please RTM let us know when this upgrade is integrated.

Posted 10 years ago

graham.reeds says:

While it would solve a lot of hackish workarounds, the actual implementation is very problematic.

I was having a think about it (have a similar problem here) and involves dividing the list into two, one of which is initially empty.

There a two buttons, one to add to the empty list and one to remove from the list. There are other buttons to rearrange within that list.

That is a lot of work. Then you need a way of displaying the dependant tasks. My initial idea would be to indent the list below the initial task and remove the checkbox and the border (or make it a light grey?).

Then there is the testing involved to make sure there isn't any unexpected effects from all the changes required.

There is a lot of work involved here. I'd rather have a couple of smaller features added first (date arithmetic and start date being two simpler choices) than a very long pause between updates.

Posted 10 years ago

andrewminer says:

I also think this would be a good feature.

Posted 10 years ago

whitneyhb says:

Here's my vote! Dependent tasks would be extremely useful to me. I would probably be convinced to pay for pro if it were implemented as a pro feature.

Posted 10 years ago

bzpilman says:

Graham,

My idea of dependent tasks implementation is a little different.

I think of them as a developing on the hide untill feature often also suggested. Instead of hiding a task untill a date (trigger:date), you hide untill another task completion. For that there could simply be a new task property: Trigger.

You could input a date at the trigger field, and that would be when the task would show up. Actually, that implementation could also be a semi-hack for start dates (we all know sticky due dates are the only real way!)

For dependent tasks, the trigger field would have an identifier (like a tag) that would be shared with the task that triggers it. In that way one task could also trigger two or more, or one single task could only be triggered when a handful of tasks were completed. Could get complex, but also very flexible and powerful.

It's something that can be done through tags, but gets very hackish.

Posted 10 years ago

ranbarton says:

I do not post this as a comment on any individual post or commenter here, but this blog post sure made me think of the discussions here:
http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/609-ill-buy-if

Makes me glad I am not a developer, frankly.

Posted 10 years ago

graham.reeds says:

@bzpilman: You method is better than mine, and less work to implement.

Posted 10 years ago

justyn says:

@ranbarton

I certainly agree with the sentiments of the post you linked to. And indeed, the RTM team should bear in mind that someone saying "I'll upgrade to pro if feature x is added" won't necessarily hold true.

But this thread has been going for more than 7 months, and well before pro was introduced at RTM. So even if such comments are ignored, you can see many, many people want this feature without even the mention of upgrade to a pro account.

For me personally, I genuinely love so much about RTM. I use it for little lists. But I rely on a straightforward system of todo lists to keep the many aspects of my life running smoothly.

Without a dependent tasks implementation, or something similar, I genuinely can't move my todo lists system to RTM. I've tried, and it just ends up an enormous mess of crazy tags.

It stops being straightforward to use and therefore I lose one of the biggest advantages RTM has over competing services.

Posted 10 years ago

blackbelt says:

I really like the idea of dependent or sub-tasks - thus creating a project task. Of course the implementation should be in keeping with the look and feel and simplicity of RTM.

Posted 10 years ago

carib says:

Especially, in the light of what ranbarton said, I'm beginning to think that what the RTM team should do is build a project management app from scratch and charge for it, like what the 37signals team did. It could sort of be built on the RTM interface principles, but it would have dependent tasks, task hierarchies, ' hide/until' and all these project management features baked right in,instead of bolted unto the RTM interface, which is what folks seem to be asking for.
Count me too as being quite cynical that all this stuff is " easily programmable" as if the RTM team could throw it together in a single afternoon.

Posted 10 years ago

dcefrance says:

Oh no... please don't!

There are many online project management systems out there. If that's what we wanted then that's where we'd be. I use a couple of them for specific projects already.

I think what everyone's saying here is that they want to keep the simplicity and flexilibity of RTM with the "simple" addition of the possibility of making tasks dependant on a previous task.

We do not want a full-blown PMS... we just want to add one new feature here.

Posted 10 years ago

carib says:

Heh, who we... white man?
Everyone wants just one simple addition that will make the RTM interface perfect.- except its generally a different addition, based on who you ask.
Think what the interface would look like if ALL those "simple additions" were bolted on to RTM's interface.
You would get a bloated monstrosity.
The better idea IMO is to keep RTM as simple as possible and build a project management app for those who want to manage business projects.. which is why you need task hierarchies, dependent tasks, " hide Until' options, etc.
Face it, if all you need to do is run your basic daily to-dos, you don't really need all this stuff.
But if you want to run major projects, you need all that.

Posted 10 years ago

johnfoland says:

I agree with dcefrance here. That's not saying I don't like your idea, carib, but I think it's completely separate and independent from this idea (dependent tasks).

Posted 10 years ago

justyn says:

"if all you need to do is run your basic daily to-dos, you don't really need all this stuff."

This is not the case for my situation. I don't think I am alone in requiring dependent tasks to be available for managing my personal todos.

Posted 10 years ago

cainmark says:

What justyn said.

Posted 10 years ago

carib says:

Of course, you will always find some situations in which having a dependent task option is helpful. Bu I ( and suspect most people) would not regard a dependent task option as NECESSARY in running their daily to-dos. Most of the time, the daily to-do list consists of either chores ( get haircut, clean room) which don't require the completion of a prior task, or various one-off tasks. I can imagine dependent task situations but not too often ( buy X bands tickets if they go on sale November 1, maybe), but I think they are rare for the average user.
They are, however, commonplace in project management situations, which is why I think they belong in a project management app.
Virtually the only online to do list manager that I know of that has a dependent task option ( Hiveminder) was built from the beginning as a business task management/project management app.
My point really is that there are many features that could be helpful for RTM users but if they were ALL implemented they would like screw up a great interface.

Posted 10 years ago

phillprice says:

I need dependancies, and as a shared contact loving app I assume its the next step - perhaps my life needs a project management team but I'm always a step ahead in what I need to do.

Why keep it in my head? I can add it tp RTM but I currently have to add future tasks as p4 with a number. Then add this numbe rto current tasks and once complete take the number out of the future task and bounce to p3.

i.e.

buy cheese (1)
1 - make cheese sandwhich

Posted 10 years ago

kingsman says:

Sign me up for the vote for sub-tasks.

Posted 10 years ago

dcefrance says:

There is an assumption here that dependent tasks and/or subtasks means business project management.

I use RTM for my personal AND business AND family tasks. ALL of them use dependent tasks.

For so many tasks there's a notion of find, buy, deliver, use:

Change the light bulb in the oven: 1. Find the oven manufacturer on the Internet or in the phone book. 2. Call the oven manufacturer and order the bulb; 3. Change the bulb in the oven

If it takes longer than foreseen for 1 or 2 then 3 has to move. It's a pain to have to find task 2 and task 3, within the myriad of lists and tasks we all have, to change the due dates because task 1 has moved.

This is true of so many different types of tasks that have absolutely nothing to do with professional and business use.

BUT if you are creating a version of the software called PRO, which I am already a client of, then these types of tasks are certainly a pre-requisite and not just a useful addition.

Posted 10 years ago

crystal.mckenzie says:

Maybe we (the users) should continue throwing out ideas about how dependencies and/or subtasks could be implemented, in case the developers are still trying to find a simple yet effective way to allow us to have this functionality. It does seem like it would be tricky to do, and that there would be a bunch of ways to do it, and a lot of testing required. (I'd love to volunteer to beta test!)

Even if there was some way for us to "less hackishly" implement our own customizable subtask or sequential task method, that would really, really help. Right now, I've just been using numbers and letters to preface the tasks, and I either review them sorted by task name or by date, depending on what aspect I need to reflect upon. (And all the tasks are repeating, so the due dates keep cycling around.)

What I noticed while setting this up was that my marking subproject steps really can work in sequence, while the tutorial subproject steps don't really matter on the sequence -- but they're numbered anyways to keep myself focused on the Next Action. I have seen to-do software that had an option to have sequencing turned on or off...

For other, smaller multi-part tasks (aka "projects") I find myself just using the Notes field for the steps, usually with the task itself having the name of the current step in the sequence. I just have to remember not to Complete the action, because I have to look up the next action in the note, and change the name of the task to reflect the new Next Action. But this is a heck of a lot easier than searching out the Next Action from a mess of other actions.

Anyways, I just wanted to share all that in case it helped the developers come up with a way to provide the functionality. Good luck Emily and Omar, I think I speak for all of us when I say that you've been doing great, and that we only want to see this wonderful piece of work becoming everything that it can!

Posted 10 years ago

carib says:

this post actually belongs in the Tips & tricks forum :-).
There are several very good tips on the same issue. to be honest, if you have a good name/numbering scheme, you don't really needs a subtask/dependent tasks software solution, although it would be helpful for many. Emily has pretty much said that it ain't happening, any time soon.

Posted 10 years ago

dcefrance says:

carib please point me to where Emily has said that it ain't happening. I would greatly appreciate getting a final decision on this from RTM. If the decision is "it ain't happening" that is most certainly their right. But I need to know.

If it ain't happening I'm going to have to move all of my tasks over to ToodleDo. I'm going to lose out on a certain number of features I've come to love (adding tasks by e-mail) but I'm going to gain subfolders and subtasks.

I'd hate to make the move after devoting so much time, energy and passion to RTM. But this has become a "deal breaker". If dependent tasks, or subtasks, are NEVER coming to RTM we need to know so as to make our own decisions as to where we want to invest the rest of our time and energy.

Posted 10 years ago

carib says:

Emily:
As we've now provided several ways to organize tasks (tags, lists, and Smart Lists), we have no plans to introduce subtasks.

A workaround for subtasks might be to use lists and tags -- for example, I have a list named 'Shopping', and within that list I've tagged tasks with 'supermarket', 'mall', etc. I can then view tasks tagged with 'supermarket' in my 'Shopping' list, which helps to break down the list.

Hope this helps!

Posted at 12:53am on January 28, 2006

============================================

This seems fairly clear, and she repeated something like this recently, saying that it would trying to introduce subtasks would cause significant changes to the interface- as indeed it would. I'm not even a programmer, and i can see this.
Despite the frequent requests for subtasks, I can see why RTM would be reluctant to change the interface that has made it ( according to lifehacker) the most popular to do list manager on the Net.
I just don't think subtasks are going to happen. Sorry.

Posted 10 years ago

dcefrance says:

Carib,

Thanks for the confirmation.

I agree that I would not want to touch the outstanding RTM interface. It's one of the major reasons I'm here along with so many others.

However I do feel that independent tasks could be added without huge modifications to the current interface. There are many possibilities including some already mentioned here in the Forums.

We already have an Overview tab, a Tasks tab, a Locations tab and so on. Dependent tasks, subtasks and/or folders could easily be added as another view on the same dataset.

I think many of bzpilman's ideas are an excellent implementation and they only require 2 new fields. Those 2 fields could appear in the right-hand column where tags and keys appear at the moment without taking too much away from the current interface.

It could be done. Many users want it. The question therefore is basically does Emily not want to add this functionality at all to the system or have they just not found a method (yet) that they feel should be applicable?

Posted 10 years ago

carib says:

Well, I'm not a programmer, but my guess
is that if subtasks and dependencies were simple, they would be more widely offered.
As it is, whenever they are offered, its usually part of an expensive business solution (Microsoft Project, for example). when its offered online its generally part of a paid plan costing $60 a year and more.
In light of this you might want to rethink your idea that subtasks are easily implemented. I've looked at bazilman's suggestions, and while it may look promising, i have a feeling that there is a lot of devil in those details. Plainly, the RTM team feels so also.
Put another way, what we have now is a flat hierarchy offering a feature set similar to the Outlook tasks module. What you want is something that would look more like Microsoft Project or Access-a multi-level, relational database thingy.

Posted 10 years ago

raymond.bergmark says:

A long time ago (actually not that long ago) there where Kremlin watchers, trying to guess what might happen in the Soviet Union based on who where present at the parades on the Red Square, and in what order. Now we have RTM-watchers trying to guess what new features might appear in RTM (and what might not appear ;-)

Have a nice weekend!

Posted 10 years ago

graham.reeds says:

Dependencies and sub-tasks are two different things.

A dependency is when something requires the completion of another item before another can be started.

A sub-task is a granular part of a larger object. RTM already has sub-tasks: A list with several related items in it.

G.

Posted 10 years ago

carib says:

I see some chance of dependent tasks. Anyone here knows how Hiveminder does it?

@graham.reeds :

Most of people asking for subtasks are really looking for RTM to morph into a version of Todoist-with RTM"s feature set and of course still free. And a pony :-)

Posted 10 years ago

bzpilman says:

Dependent tasks and subtasks are the same thing.

A task could have only one subtask, and that would be the same as having a dependency on the subtask.

When one major task depends simultaneously on many other tasks, you have the concept of subtasks/projects. It's still the same dependency, but it nows depends on multiple subtasks.

Point me the difference, please.

Posted 10 years ago

carib says:

Franky, I think the simplest way to handle dependent tasks is to simply NUMBER the tasks-which is the way grandma learned to bake a cake before there were any such things as computer software:-).
As the question of having to move tasks 2&3 if task 1 is postponed, well the multi edit feature in RTM makes that less painful. To get software to do that automatically, means looking at a major relational database solution, along the likes of Project and/or Access. You probably need to open your wallet and head on over to Base camp, etc. if you want an online solution. All those who are willing to pay $60 or more a year for that functionality, say aye ( listens to crickets for a while, then resumes).
For those who absolutely must organize their tasks in a hieracthical outline, well, I've a lot of sympathy for that . But lets not pretend we are talking about something simple.frankly, I think you have a big decision to make.

Posted 10 years ago

dcefrance says:

First of all *I* am willing too pay for RTM as it is, and I have done so, and I am willing to pay more for more professional features. The first thing I mentioned when I became a Pro member was that Dependant tasks would be the perfect feature for Pro members and worth an investment.

On the one side people here are saying dependant tasks are only available as part of expensive project management systems. On the other hand people here are mentioning existing services where dependant tasks are available for free and work. I have been playing with Toodledo for a while now and I had looked at Hiveminder. I had never heard of Todoist before. I have signed up and am creating to-do lists at the moment. The point is not which is better. The point is that it can be done.

At the moment I find Todoist overly complicated as an interface and I'm worried what will happen to the program when the programmer finishes school. BUT it really does what I need and it really does it nicely. I'm going to be spending time there and here for some time until I get sick of going back and forth.

Either Todoist will add features like being able to e-mail todo items directly or RTM will add more professional features like dependant tasks... but some day I'll go with one and drop the other.

The fact is that dependant tasks are possible. They do not have to be part of an expensive project management system but rather a natural and simple extension to a To Do list. Other systems have implemented these features as part of their To Do system without creating a complex project management system and they realised that it was a natural part of a full-featured To Do system.

I repeat that I am willing to pay for this sort of additional feature as I believe it has value and will set RTM apart from the others. But... it could also go the other way and I will pay some other system for what I could have bought here... if it were available.

Posted 10 years ago

carib says:

A workaround-posted earlier

==================

i think the best thing to do is use a tree type outliner like TreeDB Notes and once you plan out your project, just copy/paste the tasks into rtm. You can use the general "project name' tag to ID the task, but you would look to the outliner to see where the task fits into the structure of the project
===============================
The idea is to use RTM as the front end to manage your current tasks. You simply create your current tasks ( Next Actions in GTD parlance) as items in RTM. When they are done, you review your project and add more from your outline. Your outline would detail all the various relationships between the tasks and you would look there to identify any dependencies.
For example , if your project is "Conquer Albania", you set up and outline the project off site. The first thing you might want to do is hire an army, but first you have to do recruitment. the next action might therefore be " Write catchy recruitment ad". You add that as an RTM task and tag it " Albania". You look to your outline to realize that " hiring an army" is dependent on writing a recruitment ad. And so on.

HTH

Posted 10 years ago

dcefrance says:

Apparently there is a difference between subtasks and dependent tasks. In my opinion they are one and the same but in actual implementation they appear to be 2 different levels.

Both Todoist and Toodledo have subtasks and task folders. In this case a task can be made up of a group of subtasks in a particular order.

That all sounds simple and what we want in that everything's in one place. If we could get this much out of RTM I would double my Pro payment!

Even those these are subtasks they are not dependent tasks. If I set task 1 as due today, task 2 as due tomorrow and task 3 as due in 10 days then... if I change task 2 to be due in 2 days task 3 does not move. There is no dependent link between task 3 and task 2. They are simply all subtasks part of a parent task.

I would obviously prefer to have dependent tasks. It would make management so much easier. But even the simple aspect of subtasks would make it much easier to reschedule the following tasks related to one specific task rather than scrolling and searching through lists of tasks to find any related tasks. I always miss out on at least one.

It can be done!

Posted 10 years ago

carib says:

Well, Emily says no, but keep asking, I guess.

===================================
If I set task 1 as due today, task 2 as due tomorrow and task 3 as due in 10 days then... if I change task 2 to be due in 2 days task 3 does not move. There is no dependent link between task 3 and task 2. They are simply all subtasks part of a parent task.

I would obviously prefer to have dependent tasks. It would make management so much easier.

==========================

I really think that this isn't available, either online or off line, except as part of a pretty high end solution. If you find that at a low cost anywhere, let me know. I know it can be done, but it'll cost.

Posted 10 years ago

crystal.mckenzie says:

I've been using the Notes to manage all kinds of things like subtasks, dependencies, next tasks, and tasks that I need to keep track of my progress towards completion.

Some examples:

* Some tasks have two notes: one titled DONE, and one titled TO DO. When I progress through the subtasks, the subtask gets moved from TO DO to DONE. This works for those times that the main task depends on the subtasks, and this works whether the subtasks must be completed in order or not. No numbering hacks required!

* When a task was discovered to be masquerading as a project, I added a note to it entitled BUT FIRST, and appended the task description with "(but first..)" to remind me that there's more to the task. I should of course review this task and see about putting it into some more serious Next Actions, but I don't have to yet, so I haven't.

* For some tasks, every bit of progress is worth keeping track of, even if its completion doesn't actually remove the task from my list. I set the task to "repeat after..." some time period, and the notes carry forward so I can review them when the task comes up again. I still get that satisfaction of marking it complete, but I also track in the notes what it is that got complete. In fact, this might be an interesting way to remind myself to keep doing at least one Next Action for a big project... hmmm!!

* I also use the notes in the obvious ways, like recording extra info for tasks that need it, building and room number for a meeting or presentation (I keep the Locations field for more general locations, like @home or @campus), phone numbers for those inevitable "call so-and-so" tasks, etc.

I hope that my ideas have been helpful, to both the users and the developers! Maybe something in my approach can provide an inkling of an idea that helps make subtasks an actual and advertisable feature!

Posted 10 years ago

crystal.mckenzie says:

OH -- I almost totally forgot about how I designed my To Do lists in plain text before I decided to switch to software assistance!!

[_] some task that isn't done yet
[x] some task that is complete
[/] some task that's partly done

It looks better in a monospaced font, but I've gotten used to understanding what I mean no matter what font it's in. I had forgotten how much I liked this approach though! I will likely be going back to this in my Notes!

I also just realized that a lot of what I said smacks of David Allen's "Next Actions". And in particular, I'm thinking that the idea that a project could masquerade as a task is quite an understatement -- I'm sure a LOT tasks can be broken up into the itty bitty bits!! But it also seems silly to list every little Next Action as an actual full-fledged task, even though that would make it easier to to search the tasks by context.

So what I'm thinking is ... In the case of sequential actions, perhaps the context of the task as listed should be set by the context of the next action, especially if all other actions are dependent on the next one. Of course, it is also easy enough in RTM to tag something with multiple contexts, which is part of why I like it so much, so perhaps all the contexts would be listed. And maybe a task with subtasks would simply have some additional symbol within its description, reminding me that there are subtasks... something classier than just saying so in brackets (like the "but first..." idea I had above!)

Here's an example of what I'm envisioning.

"Get oven fixed" is obviously a project begging to be split into smaller pieces. So I'm going to add some subtasks in a note, and change the task description to this:
- get oven fixed (*)

Where the (*) reminds me that there is more to this task than meets the eye! So I go to the Notes field, and see this one:

NEXT ACTIONS: (the first line is conveniently bolded, but I capitalize it for extra emphasis!)

[x] @pc, url:yellowpages.ca: search for local appliance repair people and their phone numbers
[x] @phone: call several places and make appointments for inspections
[x] @home, due: ? meet with RepairPerson #1 at X:30.
[/] @pc: type up #1's comments and their quote
[_] @home, due: ? meet with RepairPerson #2 at Y:00.
[_] @pc: type up #2's comments and their quote
[/] @spouse: discuss choices and analyses, and decide what to do next

OK, so this is not only a Tips & Tricks, but it's also an idea masquerading as a tip! :P Or a tip that contains ideas of how this function might be able to be implemented without messing up the beauty of RTM... maybe? :P

Posted 10 years ago

rainbowcipher says:

well. i know this is beating a dead horse, but I really just started using rtm habitually and one of the only things i could think of to make this already unbelievably awesome application to be better is by adding support for dependencies. i'm not currently a pro user, but i'd become a pro user and be perfectly willing to pay double for it, for this feature.

Posted 9 years ago

jhasz says:

I agree - as a programmer, adding a dependency shouldn't be too difficult. Will it be work? yes. Should it be placed in the Pro version and charged for? I don't know... I might if I had the source and could analyze how much effort was needed to implement it.

But barring a huge list of dependent tasks, it shouldn't be all that difficult to implement. And I, for one, would love it.

I've only been on RTM for a week or so, and already I could use dependent tasks.

Posted 9 years ago

rusharound says:

This is at the top of my wish list, too. [crossing fingers]

Posted 9 years ago

remindmenow says:

This is at the top of my list.

Posted 9 years ago

dberglind says:

I use RTM for Gmail although reluctantly. I really need sub-tasks for my task list to be effective. Until then, it is just a reminder system for me. Not a true task completion tool.

Posted 9 years ago

dave.pearce says:

I have read through most of these ideas and would like to offer another, maybe simpler solution... We can currently add multiple notes to each task. Why not make a button that would promote/highlite a selected note to a subtask?
The note/subtask would remain where it is today. It would just be colored differently to illustrate that its a subtask and not a note.
If one needed to add a due date to the subtask- that would promote the action to a full task.
I agree with some of the posters here, I dont want to see this turn into lists, sublists, sub-sublists, etc. If people want that, then they should look at project management software. The beauty of RTM is its simplicity, and access anywhere. My 2 cents :)

Posted 9 years ago

greg.fowler says:

This is the number one feature I would request as well.

Posted 9 years ago

lazallen says:

this would make RTM unbeatable for me

Posted 9 years ago

alynna says:

This is the only thing on my wish list.

Posted 9 years ago

derek.conjar says:

Does anybody know any online to-do lists that include this feature? I don't know if it's difficult to accomplish in Web 2.0, or what the deal is, but it's definitely something I'd love to see.

Posted 9 years ago

lazallen says:

I've been hunting around for RTM alternatives that offer this, that would not leave me pining for all the things I now take for granted re RTM* - so far I've drawn a blank. Nozbe comes close; you can designate a task in a project the 'next action' but the system will not automatically pick the next 'next action' each time you mark the existing one complete.

*I've left RTM once before, for Todist and then Vitalist, but each eventually wore me down with basic UI difficulties that slowed down the process of GTD - at the moment RTM is my top dog (or cow ;) )

Posted 9 years ago

ti_marner says:

This is something that I, also, would _love_ to see added as a feature - being able to 'stack' tasks. The idea being that on completion of the uppermost task, the next task comes to the top of the stack.

This would be completely and utterly fantastic!

Posted 9 years ago

jmuela says:

It is an embarrassment for the developers that this functionality does not exist.

Posted 9 years ago

jawnlam says:

Great idea, This is much needed.

Posted 9 years ago

denisbaranov says:

Besides complex projects, this has amazing household application. E.g., instead of creating a list called Shopping and adding things there (possibly with a due date), it's much easier to create a Shopping task with a due date and add the items as subtasks to it.
So count me in.

Posted 9 years ago

ranbarton says:

@ denisbaranov - could I ask how creating sub-tasks of a task would be any easier than adding tasks in a list? Wouldn't a smartlist with tag:shopping handle this just fine? It's not as if the items within a shopping list are in any way dependent (unless your adding them in the exact order in which the items are found in your store, I guess). I've seen many usage scenarios for dependent tasks that seem sensible to me, but I think I missing something here.

Posted 9 years ago

ranbarton says:

@jmuela - it's an embarrassment that the developers have to put up with such commentary from people who have not contributed anything to their project. If it's so easy to code, then please go do so yourself. Or use some other site that offers a solution that fits your needs. I think it's laudable that RTM has chosen to adhere to their original vision for their site in the face of so much ill-considered clamor for a notional feature that would likely add complexity and ugliness to a site whose appeal comes from the flexibility that arises from its versatile simplicity.

Posted 9 years ago

wcitypoe says:

Ranbarton, the RTM folk can defend themselves as adequately as they like -- and by being so deeply vitriolic in your responses, you're merely creating work for them, in that you're ramping up the emotional level of a thread in their forums, which, if it gets too out of hand, then requires they divert their attention to it in order to moderate it.

Stop. Deep breath. This is just the Internet, after all.

If you feel that people are speaking ill-advised opinions, how important is it to fight them back at every turn? Answer: Not very important at all.

There are people in China and Myenmar who right now would absolutely love for their biggest problem to be whether or not a website offers a feature.

Posted 9 years ago

orlando1 says:

This is the main thing I think RTM is missing for me, is a way to make projects with tasks indented under other tasks.

Posted 9 years ago

prunella says:

This would much improve this product for me. Please RTM, consider.

Posted 9 years ago

denisbaranov says:

@ranbarton: I don't know how you do your shopping. Maybe you bring your laptop or you don't mind scrolling through numerous smart lists on your phone. I like to see the list on my phone where real estate is limited. Also, when I look at today's tasks, I don't want to see every single item I need to purchase. I want to see an expandable task "Shopping" with the list of necessary items upon request. My current workaround is having notes, but they are useless for checking off items.
Besides, nobody says that one must use that feature once it's implemented. There are many people here who need subtasks for far more complex uses, and you, as a incredibly proud "pro" user, must realize that if RTM wants to attract and keep user-base, they must be on par in the feature-set with the rest of the competition.

Posted 9 years ago

zhc says:

@dave.pearce

Luv ur idea. I was thinkin of the same. other day, I had a task to buy an external HDD. When i bought it, i wanted more information added such as the date when i bought, where i bought, and when the warranty ends.

These could have been under the same task, with the warranty end date marked as a full task, or may be the completed task changed into a new task.

This notes idea sounds easier to implement in RTM and keep RTM simple at the same time.

Posted 9 years ago

bay879 says:

Yet another vote for this feature. Would really complete the program for me. With the coding skill the developers have shown, there's no way this is out of reach, and I'm sure it could be elegantly integrated into the UI.

Posted 9 years ago

aajax says:

This is one feature I miss having switched from LifeBalance. LB allowed for subprojects to be ordered and then presented in sequence as predecessor task was completed.

Posted 9 years ago

lubaloo says:

yes please

Posted 9 years ago

gdufford says:

I hope it doesn't look like I'm spamming the forum, but I started using RTM last night and love it except for the lack of sub-tasking.

To see a nice implementation of this check out ThoughtManager by Hands High. I mention this just for comparison since TM isn't an online app. I'm on a iPod Touch now so TM isn't an option anymore.

I'd go pro in a heartbeat if RTM had sub-tasking. I'd go pro even faster with an offline mode for iPod Touch.

Please?

Posted 9 years ago

ranbarton says:

@denisbaranov : When I shop, I bring a print out of my shopping smartlist, and I cross things out as I go. Then when I get home, I select all and mark all as complete. No laptops or fancy phones needed.

As for being a proud pro user, I apologize if the Pro thing comes across as pompous. I am an early adopter of RTM, and my bias here is that I think RTM can do, in its current state, much of what people think needs to be added. Thus I try to urge people to use the tool's capabilities, so that the RTM crew can focus their obviously limited development efforts on things that are actually new capabilities. Like printing with notes and multi-criteria sort, for example.

Posted 9 years ago

janastasios says:

+1

Posted 9 years ago

teresa.amar says:

Add another vote (or 5) for adding functionality for dependent/sequential tasks and subtasks.

Thanks.

Posted 9 years ago

ritaly says:

+1

Posted 9 years ago

thomag says:

I would use dependent tasks.

Posted 9 years ago

david.uhlmann says:

I would also use this feature

Posted 9 years ago

blackbelt says:

Want!

Posted 9 years ago

kersti says:

Another vote for dependent tasks!

Posted 9 years ago

nadia.mercelis says:

and another vote!!

Posted 9 years ago

vitale.nico says:

I would really like and use this feature!

Posted 9 years ago

james.anson says:

Bring it on!

Posted 9 years ago

ian.hovander says:

I think this is great if it could be integrated well. I was also thinking of a more visual system for doing this with some sort of drag and drop. But that is like two projects in one and I don't know if you could realistically handle a project like this.

Posted 9 years ago

cevgar says:

Count my vote for the nested, indented, foldable, dependant or sub task idea. If you need it NOW, try AbstractSpoon Software's "ToDoList 5.5". Sure, it looks ugly, but it has everything a to do list SHOULD have in one package.

Posted 9 years ago

bozic says:

I'd like that too.

Posted 9 years ago

alexey_r says:

I don't think another request is going to decide anything,
but I ran into this lack in the first hour of using RTM
and I am certain I will miss it many times yet.

Posted 9 years ago

shmanda says:

alexey_r: ditto here

Posted 9 years ago

yumbrad says:

This is an area where Hiveminder beats RTM hands down. That said, I prefer RTM for many other reasons... but task dependency and "next action" is handled beautifully by hiveminder.

Posted 9 years ago

shendr01 says:

PLEASE DEAR GOD... DEPENDENT TASKS!!

I'm pulling my hair out wishing for it evvvvery day.

Posted 9 years ago

calrion says:

+1 Would love to have nested tasks.

Posted 9 years ago

salan says:

+1

Posted 9 years ago

sylvain.prat says:

it's a "must have" feature i guess ;)

Posted 9 years ago

angelino says:

another vote! I think we all really need this feature.

Posted 9 years ago

giorgio.chiodi says:

+1

pretty please!

Posted 9 years ago

ogourment says:

+1

I want this. If I tasks 2 and 3 can only start upon completion of task 1, I do *NOT* want to see tasks 2 and 3 anywhere until I have completed task 1. One can find workarounds for this, but first I would like to understand why RTM could/would not want to implement this. Why??

Also, I will reiterate that GetSatisfaction.com seems to be a much better way of managing improvement requests/feedback from the field. Why is not used for RTM??

Posted 9 years ago

kanntara says:

+1

Posted 9 years ago

rolandgiesler says:

+1

Posted 9 years ago

jonjudelson says:

It would be nice to have this as an option, but it shouldn't interfere with the existing structure too much, ie. if you want to keep things clean and organized you should be able to.

Posted 9 years ago

penfish says:

+1
Not having this feature does drive me somewhat batsh*t. I tried using notes as a workaround, but....yuck.

Posted 9 years ago

pace212 says:

+1

I'm currently switching organization systems and trying out RTM. The lack of task dependencies is the only thing making me hesitate -- in all other ways this system seems perfect! I'll try a workaround with made-up due dates or name prefixes or something and see if it works okay for me.

Posted 9 years ago

swinder says:

+1

Posted 9 years ago

wojo says:

+1

Posted 9 years ago

loadnabox says:

task dependency would be awesome.

something that would be useful to incorporate with it would be if you postpone something, all dependent tasks get postponed. If the ability to postpone to a specific day gets incorporated all dependent tasks get postponed by an equal number of days.

Posted 9 years ago

ed.moss says:

Definitely Add me to this request list, really handy!!

Posted 9 years ago

fitzjohn says:

I vote for this feature as well!

Posted 9 years ago

gondwana says:

I would love to see this feature! +1

Posted 9 years ago

gmakarios says:

Yes, please! I want that too!

Posted 9 years ago

david.bourbon says:

Add my vote!

Posted 9 years ago

jpmorganjr says:

+1 more on this. dependencies are key in delegating.

Posted 9 years ago

ralphs says:

I would also appreciate the ability to create dependent tasks.

Posted 9 years ago

dji.tea says:

OK, I'll jump in on this too. I've been wanting this since the beginning and would gladly upgrade to pro for it.

Posted 9 years ago

signe says:

OK, please please please can we get this ability? It's one of the few things that I find RTM lacks. It looks like pretty much all the key points have been mentioned.

Posted 9 years ago

jawnlam says:

Having this feature would allow me to use RTM for every project planning!
As of right now, I only use RTM for linear lists (like groceries to buy and Next Actions).

This should have been implemented a long time ago.

I'm very disappointed that this is still not on the top of the list of the priorities for the developers.

Posted 9 years ago

ddosen says:

Adding my .02 -

You know, this is just like managing a gant chart in a real project planning tool and is very valuable for whatever "projects' a user might work on.

Here's what I'd do to keep is simple and make it very useful. These are also best practices for managing projects in MS Project:

- don't set a due date for each task that's in a chain (or have it subordinate if tasks are chained). Instead, have the users set the time it takes to complete the task, then schedule them out accordingly, or just chain them together, and only show the next task. That way you can reduce clutter from a person's "due today" lists.

- that way, a user can get good feedback as to how much a task (or now a group of tasks) has slipped! Instant motivator (Which I think is increasingly becoming a Web2.0 issue)

- that's pretty powerful, and now that I think of it - a pretty glaring omission in an otherwise powerful task mangager

Posted 9 years ago

phil.peter says:

Oh okay, I just searched for and commented on two posts asking for something similar and now I find this one with far more replies... huh!

I'm adding my vote for this dependency feature.

Posted 9 years ago

nutela says:

This has to be taken to the next step, RTM Pro IMHO or I'll make my own RTM

Posted 9 years ago

civrot says:

I would like to add my vote as well here.

Posted 9 years ago

jasonsilver says:

me too, me too...

Posted 8 years ago

geojono says:

Adding another vote for this.

Posted 8 years ago

petewall says:

I like this idea, too.

Posted 8 years ago

krissy says:

Hi all,

Thanks for your feedback re: dependent tasks. I know that this has been added to the list of feature requests. If I get any news of future inclusion I will let you know.

Posted 8 years ago

jameswatson says:

I think this shoud be a priority for development as well.

Can we find out what the current development priorities so perhaps we could vote on what would be most important to us?

Posted 8 years ago

mosius says:

I vote yes! I'd definitely use that.

Posted 8 years ago

eric.scace says:

I'm sure people are tiring of "yeah me too" response, but I also would like to see task dependency.

As a suggestion of how to do this without making the user interface much messier, two thoughts:
-- a new item: preceding task(s).. where one picks the tasks that have to complete (or be deleted) first before this task becomes active.
-- due date: can be set to "time X after preceding tasks".

Thus, "review comments on plan" can be due "2 days after preceding tasks"... and that timer gets kicked off when all the preceding tasks complete.

Posted 8 years ago

ryptide says:

Also throwing my hat in the ring here.

I really need to be able to do one of a couple different options:

1. Create a "project"
- Basically, just allow me to define a task as a project, then create/link tasks to it in some order. Then, allow me to view either the project, or just whatever the next task is.

2. Create dependent/sub tasks
- Allow me to create a task that has a due date as normal, but provide an additional field someplace that allows me to say it is due after some other task is completed, so that I don't have to see it until task 1 is completed.

I don't think either of these would have to change the interface drastically. I basically just need a view that shows me what's really "next" without complicated tagging and having to re-tag something as next when I've completed something else. Basically, an automagically updating "next" list.

I know this is repetitive. Just seconding what everyone else is saying.

Posted 8 years ago

bighaugs says:

I'm able to pretty much do this with current functionality, by tagging each task in a project (e.g. with something like 'p-historypaper1').

But this doesn't show me which task is next in a given project; I reserve the priority functionality exclusively for this. Non-project tasks have no priority level. All tasks that are part of a project are given a priority:

Priority 1 tasks are next up in line for that project.
Priority 2 tasks are the next thing to get done after the Priority 1 task.
Priority 3 tasks are all the rest of the tasks associated with that project.

This actually works pretty well, except for two things.

First, after completing any project-related task, I have to go in and manually set my Priority 2 task as Priority 1, as well as select a Priority 3 task to be my new Priority 2. This could be solved WITHOUT adding nesting tasks; simply allow more (an infinite?) number of priority levels!

Second (and more problematically), I've jury-rigged the priority function and can no longer use it for *all* my tasks; I have no (easy) way of marking which of my non-project tasks are most important!

So... all that to say, "I vote for this, as well."

Posted 8 years ago

uklizanon says:

I am dependant on dependancies else I become ineffective - I do all the right things but, not necessarily in the right order!

Posted 8 years ago

dcefrance says:

As most of this thread shows there's a pretty fine line between To Do Lists and Project Management Systems. Dependent tasks are probably that line.

However subtasks are such a big step towards bridging the gap without adding the complexity of a full-blown PMS.

I have been using RTM for years. I have been a Pro user since the week they introduced the concept. I have used it on several computers and handhelds throughout the day every day.

I have just finished using RTM and ToodleDo during a 2-week period. I did everything double and in parallel for a fortnight. It's now time to say goodbye to RTM, who I will miss in some ways, and hello ToodleDo.

ToodleDo's web version is just too simple and logical in comparison.
ToodleDo prints in colour, with font styles (bold) and differences in priorities and due dates in comparison to RTM's plain text printouts I've been highlighting with a highlighter forever.
ToodleDo has more levels of Priority rather than just 3.
ToodleDo's iPhone app is far superiour in both performance and flexibility.
Oh, and yes, ToodleDo does subtasks!

Competition is good. It means that the best in any area can't just sit on their laurels. I'll keep watching this spot to see when (not if) RTM catches up and I'll be ready to come back whenever that happens.

In the meantime I am very happy with ToodleDo.

Posted 8 years ago

skurt says:

+1

Posted 8 years ago

metalshark says:

Moving to ToodleDo (thank you for the suggestion dcefrance) as I now need dependancies...

Posted 8 years ago

jenningj says:

i was using RTM and thought "how cool would it be if it had dependent tasks?" then i googled for "dependent tasks", and this thread was the top result.

+1

Posted 8 years ago

mariovillalobosjr says:

+1

I just started using RTM more and more regularly recently, and the idea of dependent tasks is the only feature missing that would truly make RTM perfect.

Can I vote twice for "blocking tasks"? No doubt development is focussed on new or updated platforms, but some attention to basic features should IMHO be of equal priority. Please.

Posted 8 years ago

nicoj says:

+1 (at least).

Posted 8 years ago

flyingsaucrdude says:

+1 -- I would go pro for dependencies between taks

Posted 8 years ago

krissiegel says:

+1. Sounds awesome.

Posted 8 years ago

simon.cadek1 says:

+1 this would be a wonderful feature

Posted 8 years ago

savaged says:

Still need task dependency :(
@Dev team: Please can this go to the top of the priorities?

Posted 8 years ago

ddosen says:

Any update to this feature request?

Posted 8 years ago

woodywould says:

+1 on this, definitely a painful gap in RTM

Posted 8 years ago

flyzipper says:

+1 please

Posted 8 years ago

mrduck says:

+1, am rejoining RTM after 8 months because of a large chunk of work laying ahead, and I would like to have dependencies in tasks!

And maybe subtasks as well, so a task is automagically done if all it's subtasks are done.

Posted 8 years ago

dacejames says:

+1

Posted 8 years ago

lalauder says:

+1!!! I think it's been said enough! Your public needs you great RTM gods!! Let there be a new renaissance! Build us nesting/sub-/dependant tasks! Pretty Pwwwease =/

Posted 8 years ago

bvandeloo says:

The tasks don't have to have another font of style, but you should be able to shift the order of the tasks, not just using priority.

If you could create (sub)tasks or sub-projects with tasks and order them on significance relationship to one and other, our there.

This type of hierarchy is that hard to implement.

Posted 8 years ago

yang says:

+1

Posted 8 years ago

crackd says:

+1, +1!

Posted 8 years ago

barkwheats says:

+1

Posted 8 years ago

koteflosse says:

+1

Posted 8 years ago

pierre.steckmeyer says:

I would like to have dependent tasks in RememberTheMilk.

Posted 8 years ago

katharine.hall says:

Dependent tasks are THE missing feature in RTM. I hope the RTM folks recognise the volume of people in the forum who are asking for this to be implemented. I also hope, that keeping RTM "simple" is the reason that this suggestion is overlooked, as I believe that the feature could be added whilst still keeping things simple.

Posted 8 years ago

metallator says:

+1

Simply click and drag tasks in their priority would be enough. I am convinced this should not be so hard to create and/or would devastate the simplicity of RTM.

Posted 8 years ago

swandog says:

Are we voting? Because I would like dependent tasks, and would be willing to pay for it.

Posted 8 years ago

andres.riancho says:

+1, I would go pro for this feature!

Posted 7 years ago

marijan.plestina says:

+1, I would also go pro for this feature!

Posted 7 years ago

debuck3 says:

Oh what a difference this feature would make! It is so complicated right now to "create" the illusion of dependent tasks. I understand the "don't clutter the interface" dogma (and completely respect and appreciate it!)... I think there's a way...

justyn a few years ago (near the top of this list) had a great suggestion... adding a tab on the floating side box for "requires" to link up tasks that depend on other tasks for completion. Once one task requires another to be completed first, gray it out somehow (italics font) and disable the "mark complete" function until the dependent task(s) are marked complete. This would be AWESOME!

Posted 7 years ago

rrraven says:

+1, sorry for separate post

Posted 7 years ago

jeffdrichards says:

+1, I would also love to see this feature.

Posted 7 years ago

jeffdrichards says:

Just a little more thinking about how I would appreciate a feature like this working... Sorry if this has been mentioned, (this thread is very long) I would suggest simply having a different due date possible. That due date being defined as "after task x" is complete. Might be a simple way to this rolling.

Posted 7 years ago

david.kuhn says:

+1, definitely want this.

Posted 7 years ago

rebeljack says:

+1, i NEED this!

Posted 7 years ago

polypenguin says:

This would be a great addition.

Posted 7 years ago

scharnout says:

+1 and concur with jeffdrichards

Posted 7 years ago

raymondhuang says:

+1, definitely will be a great improvement to rtm

Posted 7 years ago

fboosman says:

+1

Posted 7 years ago

j_mora says:

+1

"puh-leeeez..."

http://www.rememberthemilk.com/forums/?q=depend&Search=Search

Posted 7 years ago

mattheyan says:

+1 as stated above it would be helpful to be able to setup a task as normal but have it be treated differently (not shown, styled differently, not able to complete, etc) until the dependency is satisfied. This begins to move in the direction of more powerful task/project management. As always, keeping the basic features easy to use is a must.

Posted 7 years ago

j_mora says:

This is not project management nor anything very fancy, it is something really useful in real life, when there are many things to do and an interface that displays the information more clearly helps to get things done fast.

This is a current real example.

I have to buy a bike, when I have it I will have to buy a lock for it, which I cannot buy before since I'll use the bike to go to the shop, and it is also quite pointless to have a lock and not a bike. When I have both I will go shopping with my brand new bike and will lock it, then I'll buy headphones and some more things. I don't want to be reminded about the headphones until I haven't a lock.

As this example I have many others, dunno if I am the only one but this happens to me all the time in very normal-life situations, not very complex scenarios involving groups working in projects nor anything like that. Those things are important and I usually don't need to note them, or they have deadlines, so that gives the absolute ordering. In this case the ordering for these tasks is relative, and I don't have an specific date for any.

Posted 7 years ago

seanr says:

+1 billion

Posted 7 years ago

sdohrn says:

+1 - all said in this and other threads on the topic - would really appreciate this feature

Posted 7 years ago

jrssae says:

+1 - would DEFINITELY go pro for this feature

I like the sub-task idea mentioned in another post as well, but several of my tasks are separate enough (but still dependent on each other) that creating a master task with these as subtasks doesn't make sense. Prerequisite/dependent tasks would be hugely helpful. This is easily worth $25 a year to me with no other feature improvements from the free.

Posted 7 years ago

corin.boyko says:

Please please please. I would go pro for this. +SOOOO MUCH

Posted 7 years ago

guice says:

+ more

Posted 7 years ago

mconstant says:

would love dependencies. love the simplicity of RTM, and I am confident you can implement things like this while keeping it elegant. Help us get things done (even more). :)

Posted 7 years ago

young.nick says:

Go on RTM ... we need it.

Posted 7 years ago

sean2078 says:

+1 - either this or subtasks (also not being seriously considered) would do the trick and make RTM useful w/o tons of naming hacks for tasks

Posted 7 years ago

jonrthorn says:

Me too. I want this also. Many things that I do are contingent on things that are outside of my realm of control so it's hard to give them a specific due date. Instead I need a ... trigger or something. Like the task could be "Receive phone call" and then when I finally complete that, "Submit the paperwork" pops up.

Posted 7 years ago

robert.ward says:

I'm all for this...please!

Posted 7 years ago

cocles says:

This would be awesome. I would love to have the ability to chain dependent tasks so when I click "complete", the next task in line pops up on my to do list.

+1

Posted 7 years ago

ragmana says:

+1

Posted 7 years ago

paskv says:

Love the idea. There are over 70 tasks in my All task list and 30% of them are truly depend one from another. I use full power to get things done, and little issue can't get me feel better. :-)

Vote for this! Waiting the feature.

Posted 7 years ago

aloshka says:

+1 for subtasks

Posted 7 years ago

orengt says:

+1 I'll really appreciate sub-tasks/task dependency!

Posted 7 years ago

limoragam says:

+1 for subtasks or task dependencies

Posted 7 years ago

markdevries says:

Maybe if we keep buggering, them they will start listening!+1 for subtasks or task dependencies

Posted 7 years ago

adichka says:

+1 for subtasks

Posted 7 years ago

steinhardt says:

+1 for getting this proposal realised.

Posted 7 years ago

solenopsis6 says:

Me too!

What I'm up against right now is that I need to put some things in my car to take down for donation.

I would *love* if RTM would be smart enough that, after I've completed that dependent task (gathering the stuff and putting it in my car) that RTM would buzz my phone if I happen to be near the dropoff location. But no point to remind me if I haven't put the stuff in my car.

This would help me get more done! I just can't use RTM for stuff like this.

Posted 7 years ago

masterair says:

I think this is a really good idea. I was looking around to see if it was already available (just hidden). But I guess not.

+1 for task dependency

Posted 7 years ago

cyberbofh says:

+1 for subtasks or task dependencies

Posted 7 years ago

kevina047 says:

+1 for dependencies!

Posted 6 years ago

austinylin says:

+1 for task dependency

Posted 6 years ago

amirmasoudabdol says:

+1 Common remember the milk. I bought your service because it's good and I love you. In another word, I help you. Please help us to be more productive.

Posted 6 years ago

gstiebler says:

+1 for subtasks or task dependencies

Posted 6 years ago

blendtuts says:

I also need subtasks quite often: Say for example if I have a project, I would like to put subtasks into that project (a task), and not having them mixed with other different tasks. For now I use different lists for different projects, but I loose a lot of time changing from list to list (specially on my mobile phone). I'd love to have all projects in the same list, and spreading one of them would show up the tasks into that project :)

:D

Posted 6 years ago

chandra.gaajula says:

+1 for subtasks or task dependencies

Posted 6 years ago

davorivas says:

+1 for subtask and I'll become pro

Posted 6 years ago

leooon says:

+1

Posted 6 years ago

tkhiet says:

+1

Posted 6 years ago

j.starke says:

++

Posted 6 years ago

taniagutteridge says:

I spent hours trying to find a WIP app but nothing out there. Add this functiom RTM and you will have sooooo many more followers who can use your application for their company WIP. Woudl be very cool!

Posted 6 years ago

shocksystems says:

Please, please, please add dependent tasks. If one of my tasks is to pick up milk on the way home but I only want to do it after I fix the refrigerator I would like to make the pick up the milk task dependent on fixing the refrigerator

Posted 6 years ago

gactttaca says:

I wish this option as available. Many blogs post this as one of the major drawbacks to using RTM. I love the UI and easy of use of RTM but this a huge determent to using the program and sadly I may have to go back to using a different program because of this lack of what seems to basic functionality need with such a well developed application.

Posted 6 years ago

milkiglo says:

-1

I for one am fine without dependant tasks. I have an 'On Hold' list where I store tasks that are waiting for something else. With weekly reviews and updating action lists dependant tasks take care of themselves.

Also I use a 'Projects List' a la GTD. Sometimes I'll brainstorm a number of tasks for a project in the notes field and capture the next actions into my action lists. After completing an action you go to what's next and before you start working on something else capture where you are going to pick up,

There are more complicated list/task managers but they are more expensive and, well, more complicated. Next action lists and a projects list. Back to work.

Posted 6 years ago

manveru says:

I like the idea of being able to nest the dependent tasks or collapse them. I think dragging a task onto another task could make the user interface for this type of feature very simple. Make sure they stick together visually, somehow. I like the idea of the sub-tasks nesting under the master task better than I like an idea like the list of sub-tasks being shown in a box on the right.

Posted 6 years ago

kateoneill says:

-1 here too.

Posted 6 years ago

rachel.bock says:

Yes, please.

Posted 6 years ago

nzadri says:

That why I'm looking forward to substasks, It would really make my life easyer

Posted 6 years ago

dj.strouse says:

+1 for dependent tasks and +1 for allowing the user to choose between dimming or hiding dependent tasks as well as searching by dependent tasks.

Posted 6 years ago

orsigno says:

orsigno agrees!

Posted 6 years ago

bill.sanford says:

Either this or subtasks would do the trick for me. Yes, there are workarounds, but being able to do this directly (vs. a separate note for future tasks, then reviewing and creating new tasks one-by-one... sigh, that just makes me tired!) Thanks!

Posted 6 years ago

malicious.wizard says:

I've just written to RTM team about that, this is nice idea I really want to see implemented, or even more, I can make my best to help implement it if Python/Java help is appreciated :)

1. It should be possible to make tasks depend on other task or even (omgomg!!11) task group.2. Tasks depending on incomplete task, should be dimmed, hidden or collapsed - e.g. they should not eat too much space and distract me from other tasks waiting for my attention.3. Estimate given for tasks should be relative to their "parent". Consider I'm planning to do something for one day, but how can I make that day happen somewhere in future, when I will complete "blocker" task? You see, that's useful feature and I hope it will be implemented.

Posted 6 years ago

wildenstern says:

This could possibly just be implemented as a sequencing - with tasks ordered and indexed, and when a task is removed items further up the queue get implement once.

This would really help with automating "next action" decisions where it's appropriate, and could work serious magic where smart lists were used.

Posted 6 years ago

gaioshin says:

+1 for dependent tasks :)

Posted 6 years ago

philip.storry says:

Being able to make a task dependent on another was the very first thing I looked for, and I was disappointed not to find it.

I think that dependent tasks are a cleaner, nicer system than subtasks. I can understand why subtasks aren't attractive - it creates a new "class" of tasks which may have different properties, and which needs to be fairly feature-complete (with all the complexities of presentation and management tools) at launch.

But simply being able to say "this task depends on that one", that's not so difficult. It would fit into the RTM interface. And you can advance - or not - the feature organically, adding new views or features at your leisure.

I'd just really like to be able to tap a "depends on" field, start typing a task name, and have it look it up and match it.

It doesn't have to have complex views or settings. It can just be a fairly simple field, and a check when completing a task that any tasks which link to it are completed too. One level of dependency, and one simple function - it would make a huge difference.

Posted 6 years ago

lorenfilis says:

This is the only thing I think is missing from RTM!! I would like the task to be hidden/no due date until the first task is completed and then appear a set time after. For example when you complete task A the dependant task is due one week later.

Posted 6 years ago

maxcantor says:

It seems like this and the "Sub-Tasks" feature are solving a similar, if not the same, problem.

Posted 6 years ago

chrstn says:

Sub-Tasks or Project function.. C'mon :) ++

Posted 6 years ago

vonyang says:

I looked forward about task dependent but I couldn't find it....This dependent task can create a highly kind of task which is not the same to others..And it is applicable to create a perfect creation of its management...

Posted 6 years ago

rich.jackman says:

How about a fundraiser for this? I'm in for $50 to support development. What will it take? hmmmm user funded develpment - now there's an idea - we could do bake sales etc.

Posted 6 years ago

kael29lv says:

I like this idea.

Posted 6 years ago

deirdre.hess says:

me too... I'm not sure how this is different from subtasks, but I like them both.

Task dependency is the biggest shortcoming in RTM, in my opinion. I'd love to see task dependency added ASAP. As a secondary, but much less appealing approach you could allow the ordering of tasks by a user-defined sort order attribute. Ideally, you'd do both. :)

Posted 6 years ago

jlam says:

Thanks to Brendan from RTM to point me to this forum.

I was wondering if there was any plans to implement a feature which would make it easier to use David Allen's "Getting Things Done" methodology.

I could see task dependency offering what I'm looking for, but there would have to be some sort of search criteria feature like "isEnabled:true" or "isNext:true"

Personally I had imagined it like this:

I would like the "next" tag to move to the next task within a project

1. there would be a separate meta field called "Project".

2. No more than one token would be allowed for the project field, perhaps no spaces?

3. When only one project is displayed (because of the current search criteria), tasks can be sorted by execution order.

4. When a task is completed within a project, the next tag moves to the next task within that project.

5. Tasks can be searched with the criteria isNext or project:none

6. The next tag is user defined within the project.

Whichever method is used to implement this, the critical aspect is to have a search criteria to fetch the next tasks (or tasks that aren't waiting on another one)

Posted 6 years ago

dikipandya says:

Ah ! So in terms -- "Remember the milk" task is quite dependent on "Remember to feed grass" !!

Posted 6 years ago

rtasker says:

+1

Posted 6 years ago

manish.remember says:

+1

Posted 6 years ago

dan_.bird says:

+1I would love this feature. As a compromise It would be enough to see the id of the tasks and get a field where I can put the id of the dependent task to link to - no matter what status the tasks are in.

Posted 6 years ago

huiyubird says:

+1

Posted 6 years ago

levr says:

+1

Posted 6 years ago

bochgoch says:

Come-on RTM - this is an improvement that is well overdue...

Posted 6 years ago

cmgreen says:

+1

Posted 6 years ago

nbl.nerthus says:

+1

Posted 6 years ago

j.starke says:

+1

Posted 6 years ago

mlcreech says:

+1, I just started using RTM an hour ago and already bumped into this - it would make it sooo much more powerful.

Posted 6 years ago

brice.carbonel says:

+1... I simply dont understand why among so much great ideas for easing task management this is not implemented yet! Would also consider going pro simply for this feature.

Posted 6 years ago

henrivdm says:

I love RTM but keep bumping my head into this issue.Come on RTM, a simple solution will not be difficult and need not detract from the attractive simplicity and 'open-ness' of the product.

I think you are starting to put loyal followers and users at risk by not implementing this!! Don't get left behind!

Posted 6 years ago

abibowling says:

Dependencies would be so super-useful for me. I use RTM for EVERYTHING -- for my official work to-dos, which would benefit greatly from dependencies (i.e. completion of task "Call so-and-so to see if information XYZ has arrived" would automatically trigger the task "Do ABC with information XYZ"). I use RTM for my side projects -- again, same HUGE benefits. I use RTM for my personal use (I created a "Honey-do" list for my husband that we share between our RTM accounts, and certain household projects of my own are dependent on him having completed his). Basically, I'm saying, as an all-around user of RTM (I use it on my PC, my iPad, and my iPhone, and my husband uses it on his PC and Android phone), dependencies would be AMAZING.

Posted 6 years ago

erinlynnyoung says:

Totally agree. I only want to see the task I can do next!

Posted 6 years ago

christopher.spence says:

I would like to see this as well.

Posted 6 years ago

end255 says:

+1

Posted 6 years ago

metaloop says:

+1

Posted 6 years ago

newmilkentry says:

How would dependent tasks be implemented without losing the elegant flexibility of RTM? Linking tasks to other tasks in interrelated dependencies would be too complicated.

So, I hope we are just talking about a facility to arrange tasks in an arbitrary order within any given view.

Posted 6 years ago

gregrebholz says:

+1 for using RTM for GTD methodology. i.e. focus only on the actions you can actually take, don't get overwhelmed by the hundreds of things you can't act on right now. Lists help with this, but dependencies are really required. Ideally in a planning/brainstorming session you lay out the path to success on a particular open-loop (buy certain materials at the home store, call a friend to schedule their availability to help, submit permit applications, (waiting for permits), etc.) creating all these tasks in a dependency tree means you can hide away all gory details and see only the actionable tasks for that project. This would also help on collaborative tasks where I can't do something until some task I've shared with my wife has been completed by her, etc.

For now I'll have to try doing this with lots of Lists and use priorities in those lists to keep the "next action" at the top, but I'd go pro for this feature.

Posted 6 years ago

polancomiralbes says:

Sub tasks and dependt tasks would make this a MUCH more usefull tool.

Posted 6 years ago

graham.poulter says:

This is what we need - a way to indicate dependencies between tasks, so that one can create a smart filter for "Next" tasks for which all dependencies have been fulfilled.

Asking for "subtasks" is asking for yet another way of grouping tasks - for which we already have tags and lists, which are much more flexible than subtask structure.

Posted 6 years ago

simon.klaiber says:

What would be a simple way for depenad tasks would be a simple textfield called next step. When i set a task as done that has this field filled out rtm schould ask the user if he wants to create a task for the next step. If you click yes a new task with the text in the next step field as title is created.

Posted 6 years ago

tarahmarie says:

I really need the GTD methodology as well. I have many dependent tasks, and it's frustrating and confusing to see my 40 tasks for the week, when I can only work on 5 of them to begin with. I liked the dimmed font idea, but even better would be tasks that shift from a 'pending' smartlist to my active list once their task dependencies have been satisfied. That would keep my interface much cleaner. It seems like this shouldn't be too difficult to implement, though I'm a coder, and I understand that without knowing your code base my proclamation of "it's easy" is meaningless.

Posted 6 years ago

rawearth says:

Great idea! It would improve RTM .. so implement it ;-)

Posted 6 years ago

harryl says:

+1

Posted 6 years ago

zamboni says:

+1

I think this idea as described by the very first two posts is something different from "nested" tasks (which has it's own request). A nested task is just another way of saying "subtask". DEPENDENT means a precursor needs to be completed before the given task can even be started. Although these two features could certainly be used together (with each subtask depending on the one before it), they are also each useful separately.

It would be great to see this happen!

Posted 6 years ago

seasoul says:

Not having the ability to order tasks by dependance or to access them based on which one is dependent on which is the main reason I didn't renew my pro account last year. It would give RTM such a strong additional feature, c'mon Bob!!

Posted 6 years ago

datamedic says:

The ability to automatically move items to 'next actions' when a predecessor is complete is absolutely essential for me. I have many more actions in 'projects' than I have in single to-do activities. Look at 'mylifeorganized' for an example: they allow dependencies to be manually assigned, and the pro version also has a 'these subtasks execute in order'. Not much clutter for so powerful an addition!

Posted 6 years ago

ornthalas says:

+1 This would be great!

Posted 6 years ago

milara says:

Adding subtasks and dependencies would make RTM the hands-down obvious choice of to-do list for me. I'd almost certainly pay for a pro account.

Posted 6 years ago

manish.remember says:

+1 I need this badly. Please add this feature

Posted 6 years ago

douglas.hayman says:

Sub tasks and dependencies please.

Posted 6 years ago

valentink says:

Sub tasks and dependencies please.

Posted 6 years ago

martin.zugec says:

+1 on dependencies - actually I'm thinking about choosing different platform instead of RTM just because of this feature

Posted 6 years ago

manfrom3004 says:

This is basically subtasks+1

Why is RTM not doing anything? the top 2 ideas are both for the same thing. We need sub-sub-sub, ect. tasks. Smart lists and tags are not the same.

Posted 5 years ago

wolf_nonn says:

+1！！I wonder too！Why could'nt?

Posted 5 years ago

arobinso7 says:

Wow, I'm kind of distressed that this has been proposed for 5 years now... this is the one thing that keeps RTM from being perfect for me, and that means it's the one thing that has prevented me from going pro.

Posted 5 years ago

louis.barwell says:

sub tasks I understand would complicate matters further and take RTM more down the line of project management

dependant tasks are different as everyone has outlined. If one task has to be postponed then several tasks afterwards will need to be postponed too. It really would make RTM worth the pro upgrade

Posted 5 years ago

jakar says:

I disagree with everyone who says that dependent tasks are the same as subtasks. My concept of subtasks is this: A parent is complete if and when its children are complete. This changes how we think about a task becoming complete, and it creates a dependency between the parent and the set of its children. It doesn't scale, at least not for how I think about my tasks.

Dependent tasks, though, do match how I think about my tasks. I often create tasks that need to be done before or after another. They would also fit nicely into RTM. Tasks would still work in the same manner that they do now, except that there would be ways to create and view the dependencies. While I don't know what the UI should be, I like the suggestions to grey-out tasks that are dependent on incomplete tasks. I suggest adding dependencies to the API first, so that everyone could experiment with that part.

In any case, I think that the current system isn't adequate. I still haven't found a way to represent tasks with dependencies that is intuitive. People have suggested creating a "next" tag (or something like that), and perhaps I should give that another try, but it never felt natural to me. I could always simulate the dependencies by creating tags for identifiers and other tags to reference them. Instead, I just create the later tasks at a lower priority or without a due date. It kind of works, so perhaps I overthink the problem. But it feels wrong. I want some structure.

Posted 5 years ago

sterlingwhitehead says:

Seriously, please give me an easy way to do dependent tasks. It would make my life a lot easier and isn't going to destory RTM's simplicity and beauty.

Posted 5 years ago

vextorter says:

+1

Posted 5 years ago

straszheim says:

yes. please.

Posted 5 years ago

vito.ilacqua says:

Definitely very useful. in fact, I'm still shopping around for another task manager precisely for lack of this feature here

Posted 5 years ago

zhinjio says:

This doesn't need to be anything extensive, or something to rival M$ project functionality. Basic task chaining would be great. Ideally, with many-to-many relationships. I also don't need to be able to view this in any complex way. Ideas mentioned above about "greying out" tasks that are waiting on another dependence is fine. Additional links could be provided in the main task setting block that shows "Upstream" and "Downstream" tasks as links. Font/shading on those links could indicate status (complete, overdue, incomplete).

Posted 5 years ago

luka.mis says:

This would be nice.

hfLuka

Posted 5 years ago

randie says:

I would LOVE this "task dependency" feature. I think it would be VERY useful.

It doesn't have to be a full blown work flow or project management tool. It could be as simple as, say, adding a "depends_on" attribute to the Task object (or something like that). I just need to be able to do things like, (task1) book conference room before (task2) scheduling conference.

I'm actually using Google Tasks with tis very ugly interface now and not RTM becasue RTM doesn't have subtasks :(

Posted 5 years ago

kyoung2112 says:

If this were implemented properly and intuitively, it would make RTM the perfect tool IMO.

Posted 5 years ago

idimitrakopoulos says:

Want!

Posted 5 years ago

dfwilkinson says:

+1 for dependent tasks

Posted 5 years ago

entzling says:

+1 from me

Posted 5 years ago

cyanite says:

Dependent task is a name, but actually it should be a "link" between different task. Dependent is just one relation of it, also just "Related", "Priority over", "Blocked with", and something like these.

These relation also could be customized by users themselves, using the basic type of the "link" mentioned above.

I think this is more easier to migrate this function to the current RTM interface than the subtask. Subtask is a project like function, and not very suit for the RTM policy in my opinion.

Posted 5 years ago

mikeydrun says:

yes, please add!

Posted 5 years ago

mjk183 says:

+1

Posted 5 years ago

jfranks9 says:

+1

Posted 5 years ago

nazakli says:

This is very important function for me. Please improve this.

Posted 5 years ago

mr.louis says:

+1

Posted 5 years ago

timothymjones says:

This would be really useful for me

Posted 5 years ago

erica.nofi says:

+ a million

I'm a dedicated RTM user, and have been for years, and I can't believe how many complicated workarounds I've built using tags and smartlists to try to get around this shortfall, and have become increasingly annoyed about it. It is not possible to work around this missing feature.

This is NOT a question of whether RTM is project management software. It's an issue of I can't bake the cake until I buy the flour. Period.

I would pay more for pro if this feature were implemented (pro or free!).

Posted 5 years ago

davidscottweaver says:

I know the good folks at RTM don't want to complicate a simple design, but if there was one thing I would love it would be this. I have always liked the implementation of that todo list "Life Balance". I could have a task like "Paint the bedroom" with a dependent task of "Buy paint". So in my task list, "Paint the bedroom" would be hidden until "Buy paint" was marked completed. Very nice.

Posted 5 years ago

tomjones8 says:

+1 from me too...

Posted 5 years ago

scm910 says:

+1 for this. IMO, this would encourage a simpler, single tasking approach to your to do list. Meaning when you get a task done, you get another one. Rather than staring at a huge list of tasks and feeling overwhelmed.

I use RTM every day across platforms. When trying to convince others to use it, I can't reconcile that RTM lacks this feature.

Posted 5 years ago

rickywx says:

Add my vote for dependent / sub tasks. I just started using RTM but without this feature I may go back to google tasks.

Posted 5 years ago

jon.r.rose says:

+1

Posted 5 years ago

jon.r.rose says:

+1

Posted 5 years ago

ahindle says:

Another vote....

Posted 5 years ago

faraaz says:

Throw my hat in here as well.+1

Posted 5 years ago

tclegg says:

+1

Posted 4 years ago

gavinhoc says:

+1 (+2)

Posted 4 years ago

a.obhof says:

+2

Posted 4 years ago

samuel.meynard says:

In the same way,

I use RTM in project management. And this feature will be a great improvement.

Thanks in advance to implement it.

Posted 4 years ago

dan.collier says:

Yes, this would be great. If I could link tasks from from other lists(projects) and the next task automatically moves from the project list to my action/todo list automatically, that would be some sweet GTD goodness!

Posted 4 years ago

surfingtom says:

+1Pretty please

Posted 4 years ago

ggarciajr says:

+1

Posted 4 years ago

kern3lly says:

I would use just links between tasks - using GTD method I'd link my immediate tasks to projects, for convenience. Now I have to note this fact by adding small "p" tag (for "project's" part ;]). It's working, but not so convenient as would clicking link which would select project's list and automatically select related project-task be.

Posted 4 years ago

mikejd30 says:

I don't get my so many consider sub tasks / dependent tasks as a GTD feature. I'm not a fan of this system (I think most of what is touted as GTD is common sense organisation). However, the GTD documentation promotes using very simple task management software, not depending on software features, and leaving the regular review as the basis for what should or should be done.

The issue I see with dependent tasks is that it does not allow for organic task growth / change. What may be dependent one day, may not be the next. I think RTM is just the right side of manual vs automatic task management as it is.

Posted 4 years ago

martinhughharvey says:

I tend to not be too keen on this. I think this is more project scheduling - and no task manager app should never purport to that as they are quite different.

Not sure this is GTD based on the same argument.

Posted 4 years ago

markstansbury says:

Same comment as under subtasks. This would be huge.

I agree with martin that this is project management, but it would sure be nice to consolidate apps. If RTM had subtasks, dependent tasks, and individual task delegation, it would be a simple elegant project-management suite for some, and a GTD platform for all.

Posted 4 years ago

szganv says:

dependant task would require If else conditions.

If a specific task is not checked the css value for the dependand task is display:none; else display:... . To not forget your dependant tasks you should have an automatically created list, where they are all displayed with a link to their superior task.

I could use such a thing sometimes.

Posted 4 years ago

goraleksi says:

Need link to anoter RTM`s task like to Evernote note!

Posted 4 years ago

pink_floyd says:

+1

Posted 4 years ago

nickbracko says:

Would be really handy if very basic dependencies could be set up, so that if Task A gets postponed, then tasks B, C, D and so on would also get postponed by the same amount.

Posted 3 years ago

theanalyst says:

Work around for dependent tasks? I did not read all the posts here, but the early ones were looking for dependent relationships. Some more complex apps have that but then they become far more complex. RTM seems to be already pretty complex. So I was wondering if there is a "work around" The Note gives one a place to store a list of tasks. One could create the list in some other application and copy it into a Note in RTM. If could even have numbers 1,2,3 etc for the sequence. Using the r key to rename the task, one could change the name of the task when each item was completed. Anyone tried that? It might be too many keystrokes to be practical.

Posted 3 years ago

theanalyst says:

Further to my work around above of using Notes to hold all the steps in a project, I see that I could use the Duplicate Task tool. When step 1 is done, I mark the task Complete. Then I go to and select the completed task and Duplicate it. That puts in into incomplete status with the note containing the steps. I can revise the Note by rephrasing or modifying the remaining steps. Then rename the task so that it reminds me to do the next step

Posted 3 years ago

jhkoeniger says:

+1 - would be a nice feature.

Posted 3 years ago

jiang.zhiwei says:

I like this, similar like sub task, ANSWERED long time ago

Posted 3 years ago

digidogrob says:

+1 dependent tasks. this is becoming a killer for me and I'm now having to use multiple tools -- RTM for basic lists; My Life Organized for better organization including dependent subtasks and parallel tasks; and then Evernote for the rest of the stuff, including simple checklists.

Posted 2 years ago

lenelarsen86 says:

Oh YES. I have been looking for a way to achieve this, I was surprised to find I could not!

Posted 2 years ago

raymond.bergmark says:

Now that we have almost everything else, let's have this!

A task will not start until some other task has been completed.

That would be sweet, the Next Action (as in GTD) for projects would work automatically!

Posted 1 year ago

carloscadu says:

+1

Posted 1 year ago

andyhough says:

I agree. I found RTM this morning and have almost 500 hours of tasks (Just Like David Allan Suggested) already loaded up. The ability to link tasks as dependent to one another. This would facilitate GTD nirvana as well as using GTD as a front end for Project Management, so I am commenting here to bump the timestamp of this idea up to today.

Posted 1 year ago

atreesun says:

+1

Posted 1 year ago

jsejcksn says:

+1

Posted 1 year ago

cjstudios says:

+1

Posted 1 year ago

adrian.durlester says:

It's nice that we finally have subtasks, but with the bility to create dependencies in the subtasks, it's a very limited feature that I'm not entirely sure is useful. I;ve stuck with RTM (and as a Pro user) for years, but I'm getting itchy again to start looking at todo apps that have dependent task capabilities.

Posted 1 year ago

nivhar says:

Oh yes! This is what I wanted to suggest, and it's the first suggestion in the forum! Yuppie =) please do so! it is so very smart, logical, and will help tremendously with GTD = no need for NA tags! you can just filter the smart search for just showing the tasks that are NOT depended on other tasks to be complete. that's it =)I think it will also be very simple to implement it on your already smart task engine.... over all - it's just another task property... (like a tag or due time).thanks!

Posted 1 year ago

mrand90706 says:

+1

Posted 1 year ago

trapdoor says:

This would be the final piece of the puzzle and would make RTM the perfect task management system in my opinion.

Posted 1 year ago

apastuszak says:

Dependent tasks is the first step in turning RTM into a competent project management tool and a more automated GTD tool.

Posted 1 year ago

jhachtel says:

I saw in a different thread where there were no plans to add the feature because they don't want to turn it into a project management tool. I don't get this, because ALL of us, in our PERSONAL lives have things we need to do that turn into little side projects with tasks dependent on one another. Just think of vacation planning, or house hunting, or even errand running. Seems like such a simple little thing, but it is SOOOOO helpful. We don't need a full blown project management app for that kind of stuff, but that's what you have to buy to get them, and you have to learn how to read gantt charts. Totally not necessary if they were just added in to something like this. Check my profile and see how long it has been since I used this app. Lack of dependent tasks is why. My only nuance to the dependent tasks feature would be to ask that they not be visible in the default view until they can be done, all of the dependencies having been fulfilled. Thanks...

Posted 1 year ago

jchoyt says:

I'm looking for a way to hide stuff I can't do now because other things aren't done yet...then they magically pop up. mGSD (http://mgsd.tiddlyspot.com/#mGSD) did this very well and I miss it.

To see it in action, hit the demo (http://mgsd.tiddlyspot.com/demo3.html).

In the "No Context" list, click on Action A. Note that B now shows up.

To set that that up yourself, do the following:

1) Click "Email to storage team" which brings up the details. 2) In the "depends on" drop down in the new tiddler, choose "Email to facilities". Close that tiddler.3) Note that "Email to storage team" doesn't show on the working list now. If you click on the "Action Dashboard" link on the right you can see it as a "future action"4) Mark "Email to facilities" done and it comes back on the "next action" list.

Dealing with dependencies like this is really awkward currently.

Posted 1 year ago

micheldm says:

This is the one thing I miss at the moment.

Posted 1 year ago

jgmumm says:

Dependencies would be a very powerful addition. I was recently reviewing My Life Organized (MLO) app and it had this feature built in (it's not as good as RTM in many other respects though). Big vote for dependencies in the next update.

Posted 1 year ago

reinhard767 says:

Yes please please! Dependencies would start a new age of GTD-apps! And it´s a real need!

Posted 1 year ago

eoe says:

Just +1ing this and adding a suggestion for implementation:

Right now I put Smart-Add next actions in the Note section so that, just before I complete a task, I can copy-paste into Smart-Add. This has the added benefit of not necessarily having dependent tasks show up in my searches.

So merely a text area to put these that would automatically create the tasks after it's completed would be awesome.

Posted 1 year ago

olaf1303 says:

Its a great yes from me as well...

but: there at least 3 questions I suggest to be answered very early in the planning process fort Bob:

1) Should one daughter task, the task that depends on fullfilment of x.. should have exactly one mother task or more? which means.... Do I have to complete more then one task, maybe two, maybe three, to start the third or fourth?The other way, one mother task can have one or multiple daughter tasks, is not the same as subtasking, because no method or functionality makes subtask start only when maintask is finished....and it is a different concept.MS-Project as most of you may know is N:M related, which means one mother can have one or multiple daughters, one daughter can have more than one task to be fullfilled ahead.

2) Once Bob offers dependent tasks: Do we want two see only one generation of mother-daughter tasks - or do we want to see somethine like: b and c depend on fullfillment of a, d f and g depend on b, l and m depend an c.... and if my question 1) is answered with: we need daughter tasks that depend on fullfilment of multiple mother tasks.. then maybe b and c depend on a, f depends on a and e and maybe g,h and j depend on a, b, c and d..........you may feel what I am aiming at...And question three (which can be a follow up project: Does anybody want to import/export or synchronize with ms-project??????

So I would be happy happy with 1:n relation, on task can have multiple daughters which have to wait, on daughter only can have one mother....But reality is: On task can depend on more then one others completion.....

Posted 1 year ago

senky says:

Isn't this solved by subtasks?

Posted 10 months ago

j7btrt6j7cyxcm2odd9o says:

I hate to admit it but I recently installed todoist. I found the ability to add sub-task indentation quite beneficial... or so I thought. I soon found out that there is a 3 level indentation limit and no concept of linked dependencies.

I would love to see this feature in RTM. I have recently attempted a work-around by adding a smartlist that lists all tasks from a list with no subtask. This works relatively well from a "Hey, what can I work on now". But, I find without the gantt view or indentation view it is hard to visualize everything. I do not want to invest in a project management tool and RTM. It seems RTM can just about accomplish this.

I guess TL;DR +1 on dependent tasks.

Posted 10 months ago

kariwhit says:

YESSSSSS. Please make this happen. Sequential tasks. Can't start one until the previous task is complete. It should be hidden from view until the previous task is done. Nirvanahq does this perfectly (for reference).

Posted 7 months ago

aboltax says:

+1 (x 100)

This was proposed 10+ years ago. I just scrolled through and read a huge number of comments on this, but it does not appear that there are *any* from RTM staff. Is that their SOP?

RTM has a leg up on a number of competitors simply because of recurring tasks. But there are others -- NirvanaHQ is mentioned above -- that provide the ability to set up dependent tasks. I think it's a bit much for an app like this to handle 1:many or many:1 dependency task relationships. I'm OK with that. For this, it seems like the community is asking for straight 1:1 sequential relationship would be sufficient.

Posted 7 months ago

jserio says:

I agree with the thousands of posts above. I've come back to RTM after several years with Todoist. RTM is my home again -- for now.

However, while the subtasks feature is getting very close, what's still lacking that's vitally important to me is dependent tasks -- at first sequential relationship if that's all that can be provided and then, hopefully like Asana, the ability to specifically select a task upon which another task is dependent.

Please solve this one last remaining issue that will allow me to stop looking for a long-term solution to my task management chores.

Posted 7 months ago

snaggletooth says:

This would be really useful for capturing when tasks are blocked by other tasks. When it's just a single task-to-task relationship, subtasks can be used, but when there are multiple tasks involved, this no longer works cleanly.

One idea how dependent tasks might be implemented is by first allowing users to link to a task via some generated URI (example is how evernote allows you to link to a specific note). This would then allow users from creating links manually by storing them as notes.

To iterate on this then, there could be a 'link' feature that allows the user to express a link between two tasks explicitly. If you wanted to allow multiple relationships, it could be implemented similarly to Jira where there are multiple link types you can select. I can even see this being a free-form text field so people can define their own relationships.

Posted 6 months ago

mspecker says:

A task could have two types of subtasks -- blocking or non-blocking (regular) where sub-tasks become available sequentially if they are blocking. This would take care of one frequent use-case.

Then:

A task (top-level task) could be dependent on (blocked by) other task(s). To set blocking for this task, you'd need a pick-list of all tasks -- [List : Task] with check the boxes to create the blocking dependency.

Lastly, you'd need filter conditions "blocked" and "unblocked" to show all (un)available tasks, which could then be combined with other filters.

It's not complete (blocking is only at the task level, for instance) or fancy, but this structure could mostly answer the question "What could I be doing?"

Just a simple matter of programming ;-)

Posted 6 months ago

mspecker says:

A task could have two types of subtasks -- blocking or non-blocking (regular) where sub-tasks become available sequentially if they are blocking. This would take care of one frequent use-case.

Then:

A task (top-level task) could be dependent on (blocked by) other task(s). To set blocking for this task, you'd need a pick-list of all tasks -- [List : Task] with check the boxes to create the blocking dependency.

Lastly, you'd need filter conditions "blocked" and "unblocked" to show all (un)available tasks, which could then be combined with other filters.

It's not complete (blocking is only at the task level, for instance) or fancy, but this structure could mostly answer the question "What could I be doing?"

Just a simple matter of programming ;-)

Posted 6 months ago

ioparaskev says:

I'm not 100% in favor of the Blocked idea. I think that something simpler would solve even more use cases. The simpler thing is having a way to link tasks one with the other. This could solve cases where you want to make tasks dependent one another and by tagging/lists mark them as blocked/duplicate etc.

I.e I want to create 3 tasks A, B, C. Now B is a more general task that A and C depend upon it partially. So having a way to denote a link (with direction) between tasks would be great. For example A -> B and C -> B. If I start fixing A or C before B is done and I hit a wall, I will mark them as blocked (with a tag or list) and be able to see somehow (probably as a field is most preferable) the linked tasks.

So a field where you could somehow add linked tasks (not to be confused with subtasks) would be great. And when a task in that field is done, you could still see it but crossed out. And then if you want to take this to steroids, be able to create a smart list that will show the reversed dependencies (aka a filter/group based on whether a tasks has links or is-linked to other tasks

Posted 5 months ago

ioparaskev says:

Reading the API about tasks:https://www.rememberthemilk.com/services/api/tasks.rtm"Tasks are identifed in Remember The Milk API via their list_id, taskseries_id and task_id"

So I think that there could be an easy way to link them

Posted 5 months ago

josuegb25 says:

we just need to group that task in other "element" to create something like an issue in Jia ( every issue ita a collection of multiple entities), then just trigger a state of the properties of each task, but maybe can be more complicated.